❓ Hon Peter Foss questions the Attorney General regarding the Parole Board's handling of parole breaches, specifically why no action was taken in certain cases and the subsequent outcomes for those prisoners.
AnsweredQoN 68Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
I refer to the Parole Board’s Annual Report 2004, at page 9, the table entitled ‘B
Parole
Board’s
Considerations’ and the section entitled ‘No
Action
on
Breach’
-
(1) What were the Acts that constituted the breach that required the parole board to discuss that breach?
(2) Of those 51 prisoners not breached, what was the reason for not taking action on the breach?
(3) Were any of the prisoners later referred back for cancellation of parole?
Parole
Board’s
Considerations’ and the section entitled ‘No
Action
on
Breach’
-
(1) What were the Acts that constituted the breach that required the parole board to discuss that breach?
(2) Of those 51 prisoners not breached, what was the reason for not taking action on the breach?
(3) Were any of the prisoners later referred back for cancellation of parole?
AnswerView source ↗
Answered
5 May 2005
Responded by
Parliamentary Secretary representing the Attorney General
Response time
29 days
2. Whilst a specific response is not able to be given within existing time constraints and resources, I can advise that some of the reasons for not taking action on the breach include the fact that the offender was being closely monitored by the Community Corrections Officer and co-operating with the requirements of the condition to attend drug testing and/or urinalysis; the offender acknowledged their error and agreed to comply with the requirements of specific rehabilitation programs; and the offender already have been sentenced or had charges dismissed relating to the breach. 3. Whilst a specific response is not able to be given within existing time constraints and resources, I can advise that, from a selected sample of breach cases during the 2003/2004 reporting year which were considered by the Board, 17% of those cases had Cancel Parole orders made at the first consideration and a further 41% of cases had Cancel Parole orders made at subsequent considerations by the Board.
3. Whilst a specific response is not able to be given within existing time constraints and resources, I can advise that, from a selected sample of breach cases during the 2003/2004 reporting year which were considered by the Board, 17% of those cases had Cancel Parole orders made at the first consideration and a further 41% of cases had Cancel Parole orders made at subsequent considerations by the Board.
3. Whilst a specific response is not able to be given within existing time constraints and resources, I can advise that, from a selected sample of breach cases during the 2003/2004 reporting year which were considered by the Board, 17% of those cases had Cancel Parole orders made at the first consideration and a further 41% of cases had Cancel Parole orders made at subsequent considerations by the Board.
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.